Abstract
In this article I provide a representational and a constraint-based analysis of four interacting palatalization processes operative in Modern Standard Latvian: velar affrication, velar palatalization, yod-palatalization and front vowel raising. The main advantage of the representational account developed here is that it treats all of the mentioned Latvian processes as strictly assimilatory, and at the same time avoids purely stipulative mechanisms characteristic of many feature-geometric approaches to cross-category interactions. The article also contributes to the debate on the role of geometric subsegmental representations in constraint-based computational models, by demonstrating that a principled account of locality, transparency and blocking effects in Latvian palatalization requires the reference to hierarchical autosegmental structures. This article is part of the special collection: Palatalization
Highlights
Cross-category interactions, and palatalization in particular, had a crucial role in informing theories of subsegmental representations as the main source of evidence for the constituency and affiliation of phonological features in the feature tree
The main advantage of the representational account developed here is that it treats all of the mentioned Latvian processes as strictly assimilatory, and at the same time avoids purely stipulative mechanisms characteristic of many feature-geometric approaches to cross-category interactions
The empirical focus of this paper is on four distinct yet interacting palatalization processes operative in Modern Standard Latvian: (i) yod-palatalization, whereby alveolar and velar consonants surface as their postalveolar/palatal counterparts when followed by the prevocalic /i, e/ (1a); (ii) velar affrication, whereby the underlying velar plosive surfaces as an alveolar affricate when followed by front vowels (1b); (iii) velar palatalization, whereby velar plosives alternate with palatal stops in the same context (1c); and (iv) front vowel raising, whereby /æ/ surfaces as [e] when followed by front non-low vowels or palatal/postalveolar consonants (1d)
Summary
Cross-category interactions, and palatalization in particular, had a crucial role in informing theories of subsegmental representations as the main source of evidence for the constituency and affiliation of phonological features in the feature tree. The present paper demonstrates that palatalization patterns that proved challenging for the traditional representational theories can receive a straightforward account in the Parallel Structures Model (PSM; Morén 2003; 2006; 2007; Iosad 2012; Youssef 2013), which differs from classic feature geometric models in three crucial respects It rejects the universality assumption and maintains that representations are language-specific and emergent, rather than universal and innate. The inventory of consonant phonemes of Modern Standard Latvian comprises 26 segments, and distinguishes four places of articulation (labial, dental/alveolar, postalveolar/ palatal, and velar). In the set of posterior coronals, postalveolars and palatals are distinguished, the former set including the sibilants (cf Laua 1997; Muižniece 2002; Markus & Grigorjevs 2003) These distinctions are ignored here, because – as I will show – they are not phonologically relevant (note that manner classes are complementary within the dental and alveolar series, and within the postalveolar and palatal series). These are treated as positional variants of the underlying high vocoids (refer to Urek in prep. for a detailed discussion)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
